Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is a run-on sentence and not narrative. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
he following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein said tool is a blade”. However, there are two recitations of “a tool” in claim 1, in lines 5 and line 6. It is not clear if the tool being considered a blade refers to one or both instances of “a blade” in claim 1. It is not clear that the “a tool” recitation in claim 1 in lines 5 and 6 are referring to the same tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stinner (AT 503679). Stinner disclose a utility knife (figures 1-3) comprising: a handle (frame 7) with a front end (near 8), a rear end (near 6), a tool recess (between 7 and 1) and a lever arm recess (e.g. for holding 2/3; fig. 2); a rotatable lever arm (side plate 1) with a magnet (magnetic holding device 2/3) configured to fit in said lever arm recess (fig. 2); and a rotatable lever hinge (hinge joint 5) located closer to said rear end than said front end and attached to said lever arm (1) and configured to attach to a tool (e.g. a blade); wherein said tool recess is configured to have a tool (e.g. a blade) fit in said tool recess; wherein said magnet (2/3) is configured to lock said tool in place when said lever arm is in said lever arm recess, such that said tool extends beyond said front end (pivoted about 8); and wherein said rotatable lever hinge (5) remains closer to said rear end than said front end when said tool is locked in place.
In regards to claim 2, Stinner discloses wherein said tool is a blade (swinging blade).
In regards to claim 3, Stinner discloses wherein said lever hinge (5) is rotatable about an axis (as shown in Figure 1) perpendicular to said tool and said lever arm (1) is rotatable approximately 90 degrees about said lever hinge (5).
In regards to claim 4, Stinner discloses wherein said handle (7) comprises a first handle portion and a second handle portion (front and back or the handle or alternatively left side and right side).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stinner (AT 503679) in view of Salin et al. (U.S. Patent 9,003,585), herein referred to as Salin.
In regards to claim 5, Stinner discloses the claimed invention except for :a second rotatable lever arm with a second magnet configured to fit in a second lever arm recess; and a second rotatable lever hinge attached to said second lever arm and configured to attach to a tool; wherein said second tool recess is configured to have a tool fit in said second tool recess; and wherein said second magnet is configured to lock a tool in place when said second lever arm is in said second lever arm recess. Attention is further directed to the Salin pocket knife with separable body portions, each portion utilizes a different folding tool to pivot into and out of the body portion. Stalin teaches the advantage of providing multiple tools on a common body to increase the versatility and allow transport as a single unit. The duplication of an existing functional assembly to provide an additional tool constitutes no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, involving only routine skill in in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the Stinner pocket knife to have a secondary tool either removably or unremovably attached to the back of the grip 2 to enable a secondary cutting implement to be carried on the same body to increase the tools versatility as shown by Salin, See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ8.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neft (U.S. Patent 1,428,296) in view of Stinner (AT503679).
In regards to claim 1, Neft discloses a utility tool device(fig 1), comprising a handle (hand grip 2) with a front end (closer to pivot pin 12), a rear end (near handle 24), a tool recess (between 3 and 8; figs. 4 and 5) and a lever arm recess (e.g. above the casing plate and between the plate 1 and hand grip 2); a rotatable lever arm (grip 8) configured to fit in said lever arm recess; and a rotatable lever hinge (near 24) located closer to said rear end than said front end and attached to said lever arm (8) and configured to attach to a tool (e.g. knife blade 13 at 18): wherein said tool recess is configured to have a tool fit in said tool recess (between 11 and 3 see figs. 4 and 5); such that said tool extends beyond said front end (fig. 4); and wherein said rotatable lever hinge (near 24) remains closer to said rear end (near handle 24) than said front end (near the pivot pin 12) when said tool is locked in place.
Neft does not disclose that that the lever arm has a magnet configured to lock said tool in place when said lever arm is in said lever arm recess. Instead Neft discloses a locking pin (19) disposed on the lever arm (8) that engages with a recess (18) in block (1) to prevent the tool/knife from being pivoted into out of the handle. Attention is also directed to the Stinner, which discloses a folding knife in which the the blade is foldable into the handle for storage or outward for use. Stinner further teaches that the lever arm can have a magnetic or a mechanical retaining device (3) to hold the lever against the handle. As both Stinner and the Neft pertain to folding knifes utilizing a hinged lever to secure the blade within the handle, and as Stinner expressly teaches that magnetic retaining means are known alternatives to mechanical retaining means for securing a lever to a handle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the Neft locking pin to be a magnet as an alternative locking mechanism. Such a substitution would have predictably performed the same locking function without altering the operation of the lever.
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Neft discloses that the tool is a blade.
In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Neft discloses wherein said lever hinge (near 24) is rotatable about an axis (across the tools width) perpendicular to the tool (to the tools length).
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Neft discloses wherein said handle comprises a first handle portion and a second handle portion (right side and left side).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neft (U.S. Patent 1,428,296) in view of Stinner (AT503679) and in further view of Salin et al. (U.S. Patent 9,003,585). The modified device of Neft discloses the claimed invention except wherein a second rotatable lever arm with a second magnet configured to fit in a second lever arm recess; and a second rotatable lever hinge attached to said second lever arm and configured to attach to a tool; wherein said second tool recess is configured to have a tool fit in said second tool recess; and wherein said second magnet is configured to lock a tool in place when said second lever arm is in said second lever arm recess.
Neft therefore does not disclose the duplication of the pocket knife.
Attention is further directed to the Salin pocket knife with separable body portions, each portion utilizes a different folding tool to pivot into and out of the body portion. Stalin teaches the advantage of providing multiple tools on a common body to increase the versatility and allow transport as a single unit. The duplication of an existing functional assembly to provide an additional tool constitutes no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, involving only routine skill in in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the Neft pocket knife to have a secondary tool either removably or unremovably attached to the back of the grip 2 to enable a secondary cutting implement to be carried on the same body to increase the tools versatility as shown by Salin, See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. 193 USPQ8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724